# Opposition Brief — Pennsylvania v. Halye

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_0538%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2000
- **Citation:** 529 U.S. 1012

## Text

No. 99-981 CLERK

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Anited States
October Term 1999

SS ae

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Petitioner,
V.
EDWARD HALYE,

Respondent,

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Al Flora, Jr.

First Assistant Public
Defender

Luzerne County Courthouse
200 North River Street
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711
(570) 825-1754

Attorney for Respondent

_~? ©

ay

The Respondent asks leave to file the attached Brief in Opposition without

payment of costs and to proceed In Forma Pauperis.

The Respondent has been represented by the Public Defender’s Office of Luzerne
County Pennsylvania and has proceeded In Forma Pauperis in all State Court
proceedings.

Respondent since his arrest on criminal charges which have led to the instant
proceedings has been incarcerated in the State Court system from September 1996 to the
present and is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon
Pennsylvania.

Respondent’s declaration in support of this motion is attached hereto.

C20 ha
Al Flora, Jr., Esquire =~
First Assistant Public Defender
Luzerne County Courthouse
200 North River Street
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711-1854
(570) 825-1754

Attorney for Respondent

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Petitioner : No. _99-981
vs. :
EDWARD HALYE, , 2EAO Term, 199%
Respondent
I, Edward Halye being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am

Respondent in the above entitled case; that in support of my motion for lcave to proceed
on petition for writ of certiorari in forma pauperis without being required to prepay fees,
costs or give security therefore, I state that because of my poverty I ain unable to pay the
costs of said proceeding or to give security therefore; that I believe I am entitled to redress.

I further swear that the responses which I have made to the questions and
instructions below relating to my ability to pay the cost of prosecuting the appeal are true.

1. Are you presently employed? ud 0

a. If the answer is yes, state the amount of your salary or wages
per month and give the name and address of your employer.

b. If the answer is no, state the date of your last employment and
the amount of the salary and wages per month which you received.

JULY 4%

2. Have you received within the past twelve months any income from a business,
profession or other form of self employment or in the form of rent payments, Interest,
dividends or other income? No

a. If the answer is yes, describe each source of income and state the
amount received from each during the past twelve months.

3. Do you own any cash or checking or savings account? NO

a. If the answer is yes, state the tutal valuc of the items owned.

4. Do you own any real estatc, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles, or other valuable
property (excluding ordinary houschold furnishings and clothing)? No

a. If the answer is yes, describe the property and state its approximate
value.

5. List the persons who are dependent upon you fer support and state your
relationship to those persons.

NONE

I UNDERSTAND THAT FALSE STATEMENTS OR ANSWERS TO ANY QUESTIONS
IN THIS AFFIDAVIT WILL SUBJECT ME TO PENALTIES FOR PERJURY.

Dated this 24 day of _ JANUARY, 2000.

Cue Bfily —

EDWARD HALYE

A SA ns ae gang Ew i ein Bali al a A

__ CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that “the: petitioner herein has the sum of
$ .46 | on account to his credit at the
institution where he is confined. I
further certify that petitioner likewise has the following
securities to his credit according to the records of said
SCI-HUntingdon institutions: NONE

BLL Yee

Charles E. Mart yf, Business Manager II

SS

PA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS INMATE ACCOUNTS SYSTEM RUN IAS365
. BUREAU OF COMPUTER SERVICES PARTIAL ACCOUNT LISTING DATE 1/28/2000
REMOTE PRINT TIME 14:22 FROM PURGE FILE PAGE 1
INMATE NAME
NUMBER LAST FIRST MI STARTING BALANCE
DK3707 HAYLE EDWARD 2340
BATCH DATE TRANSACTION BALANCE AFTER
# MO DY YEAR TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TRANSACTION
Sd 07-13-1999 10 MAINTENANCE PAYROLL
JUNE, 1999 22.00 20.390
T4548 07-13-1999 38 INSIDE PURCHASES
XEROX COPIES WK ENDING 7/3/99 =~. 60 20.30
7741 07-14-1999 37 POSTAGE
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 7/8/99 wae OE | LN
7812 07-21-1999 32 COMMISSARY
JULY 21, 1999 age ee Ore 08
7945 08-12-1999 10 MAINTENANCE PAYROLL
JULY, 19599 21.00 21.08
7990 08-19-1999 44 ORGANIZATIONAL
JAYCEE PHOTO'S ON LT woo
8234 08-22-1999 32 HUN COMMISSARY
FOR 8/22/1999 ht A) 8 08
99 09-09-1999 38 INSIDE PURCHASES
XEROX COPIES-25 AUGUST 1999 re mae:
bg 09-10-1999 10 MAINTENANCE PAYROLL
AUGUST, 1999 Le V0 14.88
8259 09-16-1999 32 HUN COMMISSARY
FOR 9/16/1999 «14.63 to
BALANCE AFTER THESE TRANSACTIONS------ > ‘ao

ee

PA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS INMATE ACCOUNTS SYSTEM RUN TAS365
BUREAU OF COMPUTER SERVICES PARTIAL ACCOUNT LISTING DATE 1/28/2000
REMOTE PRINT TIME 14:22 FROM PURGE FILE PAGE 1
INMATE NAME
NUMBER LAST \ FIRST MI STARTING BALANCE
DK3707 HAYLE EDWARD 229
BATCH DATE T®ANSACTION BALANCE AFTER
# MO DY YEAR TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TRANSACTION

S22 10-13-1999 10 MAINTENANCE PAYROLL

SEPTEMBER, 1999 21.00 rt ae te
350 10-18-1999 31 OUTSIDE PURCHASES
ACCESS CATALOG -9.29 Dae re
8294 10-21-1999 32 HUN COMMISSARY
FOR 10/21/1999 gsi eh ao?
482 11-09-1999 10 MAINTENANCE PAYROLL
OCTOBER, 1999 fhe 0 eS
8314 11-10-1999 32 HUN COMMISSARY
FOR 11/10/1999 aed eG «62
570 11-22-1999 41 MEDICAL
SPORTS INJURY-14 NOVEMBER 1999 ia OU aed EPSP
648 12-07-1999 10 MAINTENANCE PAYROLL
NOVEMBER, 1999 33.00 eee 2 |
8343 12-09-1999 32 HUN COMMISSARY
FOR 12/09/1999 2Line 9.36
8350 12-16-1999 32 HUN COMMISSARY
FOR 12/16/1999 me ae ee “eo

BALANCE AFTER THESE TRANSACTIONS------ > ee

Fo]

PA DEPT.

REMOTE PRINT

INMATE NAME
NUMBER LAST
DK3707 HAYLE

BATCH DATE

* MO DY YEAR
875 01-12-2000
8013 01-13-2000
919 01-19-2000

Ww
ee)

OF CORRECTIONS
BUREAU OF COMPUTER SERVICES
TIME 14:22

INMATE ACCOUNTS SYSTEM RUN IAS365
PARTIAL ACCOUNT LISTING DATE 1/28/2000
FROM ACTIVE FILE PAGE 1

FIRST MI STARTING BALANCE
EDWARD +
TRANSACTION BALANCE AFTER
TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TRANSACTION
MAINTENANCE PAYROLL
DECEMBER, 1999 31.38 24.63
HUN COMMISSARY
FOR 1/13/2000 -30.77 86
INSIDE PURCHASES
XEROX COPIES-29 DECEMBER 1999 -.40 46
BALANCE AFTER THESE TRANSACTIONS------ > 46

No. 99-981

IN THE
Supreme Court of the Anited States

October Term 1999

————— _—_———__

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Petitioner,
v.
EDWARD HALYE,

Respondent,

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania

RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN OPPCSITION

Al Flora, Jr.

First Assistant Public
Defender

Luzerne County Courthouse
200 North River Street
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711
(570) 825-1754

Attorney for Respondent

REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT

The state courts of Pennsylvania have not decided this question of federal law in a
way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court and other federal Circuit Courts.

In E.B. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3 Cir. 1997), the provisions of New Jersey’s Megans

Law that allocated the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that he was not a
sexually violent predator was determined to violate procedural due process.

.he conviction of a defendant of a predicate offense creates the presumption that
the defendant is a sexually violent predator without proof of additional facts. 42
Pa.C.S.A. 9794 (b). As a result, Megans Law alters the maximum penaltv for the offense
for which the defendant was convicted to a mandatory maximum sentence of life
imprisonment. 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9799.4. This statutory scheme, which is a criminal rather
than civil process, does not create a sentencing enhancement but rather an alteration of a
maximum sentence without proof of additional facts. Such a scheme violates procedural

due process. Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 609-10, 87 S.Ct. 1209, 1212 (1967)

(Colorado’s Sex Offenders Act which allows for an indeterminate to life sentence after

conviction of a predicate offense violated procedural due process); McMillan v.

Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2411 (1986) (proof of additional facts under

mandatory sentencing scheme which does not alter maximum penalty only serves to

enhance penalty and does not violate due process). See, Kansas v. Hendricks,

__US.__, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (Kansas Sexually Violent Predator

Act does not violate procedural due process because, as part of a civil process, it places

. ———————————

the burden of proof upon the state and does not increase an offender’s maximum term of
imprisonment).

Respondent further maintains that the reversal of the law in this case, thus
requiring the burden of persuasion to be placed upon the Commonwealth, protects
citizens by insuring that its classification system is fair and accurate. The reversal of the
law also protects the fundamental liberty rights of defendants by requiring an accurate
and reasonable disposition of the issues before state criminal trial courts. Imposing the
burden of proof upon the Commonwealth materially minimizes the risk of error in
determining that a defendant is a sexually violent predator without impairing the states

ability to secure a prompt determination. Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct.

893, 47 L.Ed. 2d 18 (1976).

CONCLUSION

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be denied. '

_ agar

Al Flora, Jr., Esquire = ==—™
First Assistant Public Defender
Luzerne County Courthouse
200 North River Street
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711-1854
(570) 825-1754

Attorney for Respondent

' The Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rather than the States
Intermediate Appellate Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_0538%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.